Chances are those well-known eloquent lyrics have stirred up some patriotic spirit from somewhere deep within even the most sporting averse of us.
With the 2016 summer of sport fast upon us the effect of the Euros, Wimbledon and the Olympics could have a significant impact on the economy (and the nerves) of the nation.
In case you have just returned from Outer Space- the UK Government has announced that it is holding a referendum on 23 June 2016 on the question:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”
In the meantime, whilst the UK decides whether to Brexit or not, the EU Commission is taking a “business as usual” stance.
The UK’s EU Referendum on membership is looming on the horizon – What are the legal implications of a so-called “Brexit” for restructuring and insolvency professionals?
The EU Referendum Act 2015 obtained Royal Assent on 17 December 2015 and provides for the following question to be put forward for voting in a referendum in the UK until the end of 2017: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”
Following on from our recent blog on ‘How the UK General Election Might Influence the Recast Insolvency Regulation’ and whether the UK will still be part of the EU in 2017 when it comes into force, we consider the ‘hokey cokey’ of the upcoming EU referendum.
On May 4, 2015, in the case Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, the United States Supreme Court held that debtors in chapter 13 (and presumably chapter 9 and 11 as well) are not entitled as of right to immediately appeal bankruptcy court orders denying confirmation of a proposed plan of reorganization. This ruling, although consistent with a majority of circuit courts of appeal that have considered the issue, reversed governing precedent in several circuit courts—including the Third Circuit, which reviews Delaware bankruptcy court decisions.
The European Advocate General has today given his opinion in the “Woolworths case” (and two other cases) on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when the duty to consult appropriate representatives is triggered under the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).
Foreign sovereigns have long assumed that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides them with substantial protection against litigants in United States courts. Although the immunity afforded by the FSIA has never been absolute, two recent developments in the Supreme Court of the United States – both involving the Republic of Argentina – have expanded plaintiffs’ ability to locate sovereign assets and force satisfaction of a judgment, notwithstanding the seemingly broad protections of the FSIA.
The rulings are important for sovereign investors for a number of reasons:
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, a case that tested the extent of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court judges to decide fraudulent transfer and certain other claims against non-debtors. Ropes & Gray LLP represented the petitioner in obtaining certiorari and in the Supreme Court proceedings.
In Europe each year there are an estimated 200,000 corporate insolvencies. More than half of the companies set up do not survive their first five years of trading and more than 1.7 million jobs are lost every year as a result. One in five of those companies will have international operations that cross national borders.
The European Union (EU) has sought to introduce an element of harmonization across its Member States, to facilitate the effective operation of cross-border insolvencies.